I see it as a return to the great power posturing that was common in Europe pre-WW2.
The NATO alligned states must react to it steadfastly on a case-by-case basis. By that I mean not backing down. Churchill even said that you must show strength to the russians. Being overly paranoid as to their motives isn't helpful either. It's natural for states to pursue their national interest. Though the west examines foreign policy through morality (particular on the surface and when not dealing with matters especially critical to the state) the russian state has recently adopted a more power based approach.
While on critical matters to do with the strategic integrity and security of the state the west stays with the traditional realist approach, over it lies a moral aspect missing in the actions of great powers such as Russia and China. Look at China's engagement with Africa compared to Europe's and the United States' as an example of this.
In the end too much paranoia can lead to response lacking the requisite subtlety necessary for success. Recognition that other states will assert themselves is key.
As for the arctic it's an interesting situation with treaties establishing economic zones which are agreed upon by the relevant actors. Any expansion that does not include all the interested parties will probably be decided by the power spread from the barrel of the gun. By that I mean by the willingness or lack thereof to use military power to take control.
Let's not forget the dispute between Canada and Denmark over
Hans Island.